Tag Archives: producer

PlantTag

Quality Systems 101: CAPA Programs Drive Improvement & Prevent Costly Mistakes

By David Vaillencourt
No Comments
PlantTag

No business is perfect, especially when humans are part of the equation. But, how do you tackle fixing quality issues as they arise? The goal of this article is to shed some light on the value of a CAPA program and why many states are making them mandatory for cannabis businesses.

Let’s consider the following situations:

  • Analytical lab results for a production batch test above the limit for a banned pesticide or microbial contamination
  • You open a case of tincture bottles and some are broken
  • A customer returns a vape pen because it is leaking or ‘just doesn’t work’

Do you…

  • Document the issue?
  • Perform some sort of an investigation, asking questions of the people involved?
  • Ask for a retest? Then, if the test comes back positive, move on?

Let’s go through each one of these and understand why the suboptimal answer could be costing your business money:

You don’t document the issue

I hear excuses for skipping on documentation all the time.

  • “It’s not a big deal”
  • “It was a one off”
  • “The glasses probably broke in transit”
  • “They are cheap and easily replaceable”
  • “It’s not worth the time”
Tracking and documenting supplier shipments can help you identify supply chain issues.

In the situation of a couple of broken bottles in a shipment, what if it was the seventh time in the last two months? If you haven’t been documenting and tracking the issue, you have no way of knowing if it was a single occurrence. Remember when you were surprised that your filling team did not have enough bottles? Those broken bottles add up. Without documenting the incident, you will never know if it was truly a one-time mistake or the sign of a deeper issue. The reality is, it could be sloppy handling on the production line, issues with the shipper or even a sign of poor quality coming from the supplier.

Have you ever compared the number of fills vs the number of bottles ordered? How much money have you already lost due to those broken bottles adding up? Do you have the ability to answer this question?

You perform an investigation

Let’s say a customer returns a leaky vape pen. You perform an investigation by asking the production workers what they think went wrong. They say that it’s very difficult to get the seal for the cartridge into place. Their supervisor tells them to try harder, refunds the customer and moves on. But, why is it difficult to get the seal into place? Is it a design flaw? Should a special tool be used to assemble the cartridge properly? Without getting to the root cause of why the seals are leading to leaking cartridges, you are doomed to have repeat issues. Numerous studies have found that less than one in twenty dissatisfied customers will complain, and that approximately one in ten will simply leave for another brand or provider. How much is this unresolved issue truly costing your business?

Asking for a retest and if it passes, releasing the product and moving on.

labsphoto
In Colorado, 15% of the final tested cannabis flower products continue to fail.

Suppose a major producer of cereal received test results for its most popular cereal that were positive for levels of heavy metals that research has shown to be linked to cancer or developmental issues in children. Now, suppose the company stated that it was an isolated incident and a retest showed that the product met acceptable limits. Further investigation showed no paperwork, save for a couple of emails and a phone call between the lab and the producer. Would that give you peace of mind? This is known as “testing into compliance” and was the subject of a landmark lawsuit in 1993 that Barr Laboratories lost.

For many the answer would be a hard NO. But this happens every day. In Colorado, 12.5% of cannabis batches failed final product testing in 2018 and 2019. That’s one in eight batches! What happened to those products? Good question.

Enter: CAPA (Corrective Action and Preventive Action) programs! For people with a background in quality and GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices), CAPA is a household name. And, it’s quickly becoming a requirement that cannabis regulatory bodies are looking at. Colorado was the first state to explicitly require CAPA programs for all license holders effective January of this year and has provided a free resource for them. But, for the large majority of people, including those in the cannabis industry, it’s just another acronym.

What does a CAPA program do?

The benefits are numerous but two major ones are:

An effective tool for investigating the true root cause

First of all, a CAPA program provides the framework for a tool for investigation – as Murphy’s Law posits – things go wrong all of the time. Whether you have a manual, labor-intensive process or a highly automated operation, the equipment is programmed, maintained and monitored by humans. The logical sequence of problem solving within a CAPA program allows you to thoroughly investigate and determine the root cause of the issue. With a complete understanding of root cause, you are then able to eliminate it and prevent future occurrences – not just in the one area investigated, but in all similar situations throughout the company.

System for continuous improvement

Gathering info from a customer complaint like batch or product IDs can be crucial in a CAPA system

Anyone who is in the market for a new car lately can appreciate the technological advances. In the 1980s, it was air bags and ABS brakes (those of you that drive in snowy climates and remember having to pump your brakes can appreciate technological advancements). Bluetooth technology for hands-free communication and radio control is another example of continuous improvement in cars.

This is one of the biggest predictors and differentiators between profitable and successful companies with satisfied clients and one that is barely scraping by. The cost of poor quality adds up!

Key inputs in a CAPA system 

If the output is an improved system and lower cost of quality, we need to make sure we’re considering the potential inputs. 

Information that feeds into your CAPA system:

Customer complaints

Every complaint must be recorded. Gather as much information as possible, but at a minimum: the product type/SKU, the customer name and date of purchase. If possible, the batch or product ID.

This is not necessarily to identify products for a recall, but to prevent…

Laboratory test results

This should not be restricted to final product testing, but include any in-process inspections. Say you have a product repeatedly failing final testing, what if it’s actually been consistently failing or very close to failing at the very first in-process inspection? It’s also important to work with your laboratory to understand their method validation process, including the accuracy, precision, robustness, etc.

Infrastructure & environmental controls/monitoring

Most people consider “environmental controls” to be things like temperature and humidity control. While that is true, it can also include pest and contamination control. Poorly designed infrastructure layouts are major contributors to product cross contamination as well.

Supplier information

Undetected supply chain issues (remember the broken bottles?) can add up fast! CAPAs for suppliers cannot just include supplier monitoring, but improvement in how you communicate your needs to your suppliers. It’s easy to overlook non-cannabis raw materials as sources of microbiological and chemical contamination. Conduct a risk assessment based on the type of contact with your product and the types of contamination possible and adjust your supplier qualification program accordingly.

Are you ready to recognize the benefits of a CAPA program?

One more major benefit of CAPA programs to mention before we go is … Preventive via predictive analytics.

In Colorado, 15% of the final tested cannabis flower products continue to fail, mostly due to mold and mildew. A quality system, with effective data capture that is funneled into a CAPA program can easily reduce this by 75%. For even a small business doing $2M per year in revenue, that equates to a revenue increase of nearly $200,000 with no additional expenses.

Whether you are operating in the State of Colorado or elsewhere, a CAPA and Recall program will provide immense value. In the best case, it will uncover systemic issues; worst case, it forces you to fix mild errors. What are you waiting for?

Lab Shopping: Highlighting the Need for Checks and Balances in Cannabis

By Josh Swider
No Comments

Cannabis, we have a problem. Legalizing adult use cannabis in California caused the demand for high-potency cannabis to increase dramatically over the last several years. Today, many dispensary buyers enforce THC minimums for the products that they sell. If smokeable flower products don’t have COAs proving the THC levels are above 20% or more, there is a good chance many dispensaries won’t carry them on their shelves. Unfortunately, these kinds of demands only put undue pressure on the industry and mislead the consumer.

Lab Shopping: Where the Problems Lie

Lab shopping for potency analysis isn’t new, but it has become more prevalent with the increasing demand for high-potency flower over the last couple of years. Sadly, many producers submit valid, certified COAs to the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), which show two to three times the actual potency value.

At InfiniteCAL, we’ve purchased products from dispensary shelves and found significant discrepancies between the analysis we perform and the report submitted to the BCC by the producer. So, how can this happen? Several factors are creating the perfect storm in cannabis testing.

Problems with Potency

Many consumers still don’t understand that THC potency is not the only factor in determining quality cannabis, and they are unwittingly contributing to the demand for testing and analysis fraud. It is alarming for cultivation pioneers and ethical labs to see producers and profit-hungry testing facilities falsifying data to make it more appealing to the unaware consumer.

Basically, what’s happening is growers are contacting labs and asking, “I get 30% THC at this lab; what can you do?” When they see our COA reporting their flower tested lower than anticipated, they will go to another lab to get higher test results. Unfortunately, there are all too many labs that are willing to comply.

I recently saw a compliant COA that claimed that this particular flower was testing at 54% THC. Understanding cannabis genetics, we know this isn’t possible. Another product I reviewed claimed that after diluting an 88% THC distillate with 10-15% terpenes, the final potency test was 92% THC. You cannot cut a product and expect the potency to increase. Finally, a third product we reviewed claimed 98% total cannabinoids (while only looking at seven cannabinoids) with 10% terpenes for a total of 108% of the product.

These labs only make themselves look foolish to professionals, mislead laymen consumers and skirt under the radar of the BCC with basic mathematical errors.

The Pesticide Predicament

Frighteningly, inflating potency numbers isn’t the most nefarious testing fraud happening in the cannabis industry. If a manufacturer has 1000 liters of cannabis oil fail pesticide testing, they could lose millions of dollars – or have it retested by a less scrupulous lab.

Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr

As the industry continues to expand and new labs pop up left and right, cultivators and manufacturers have learned which labs are “easy graders” and which ones aren’t. Certain labs can miss up to ten times the action level of a pesticide and still report it as non-detectable. So, if the producer fails for a pesticide at one lab, they know four others won’t see it.

In fact, I’ve had labs send my clients promotional materials guaranteeing compliant lab results without ever receiving a sample for testing. So now, these companies aren’t just tricking the consumer; they are potentially harming them.

An Easy Fix

Cannabis testing is missing just one critical factor that could quickly fix these problems – checks and balances. The BCC only needs to do one of two things:

Verifying Lab Accuracy

InfiniteCAL also operates in Michigan, where the Marijuana Regulatory Agency (MRA) has already implemented a system to ensure labs are maintaining the highest testing standards. The MRA will automatically flag all COAs which test above a certain percentage and require the product to be retested by multiple labs.

labsphotoLabs are required to keep a back stock of material. So, when test results come back abnormally high from Lab A, then Labs B, C and D are commissioned to retest the material to compare data. If Lab A reports 40% THC, but the other labs all report 18%, then it’s easy to see Lab A has made an error.

Secret Shopping

By simply buying products off the shelves and having them blind-tested by other labs, it would be simple for the BCC to determine if the existing COA is correct. They already have all the data in Metrc, so this would be a quick and easy fix that could potentially solve the problem overnight.

For example, at InfiniteCAL, we once purchased 30 samples of Blue Dream flower from different cultivators ranging in certified COA potencies from 16% to 38%. Genetically, we know the Blue Dream cultivar doesn’t produce high levels of THC. When we tested the samples we purchased, nearly every sample came back in the mid-teens to low 20% range.

Labs Aren’t Supposed to Be Profit Centers

At InfiniteCAL, we’ve contacted labs in California where we’ve uncovered discrepancies to help find and flush out the errors in testing. All too often, we hear the excuses:

  • “If I fix my problem, I’ll lose my clients.”
  • “I’m just a businessman who owns a lab; I don’t know chemistry.”
  • “My chemist messed up; it’s their fault!”

If you own a lab, you are responsible for quality control. We are not here to get rich; we are here to act as public safety agents who ensure these products are safe for the consumer and provide detailed information about what they choose to put in their bodies. Be professional, and remember you’re testing for the consumer, not the producer.

New Guidance on Waste Disposal for Hemp Producers

By Stephanie McGraw, Emily Sellers
No Comments

On January 15, 2021, the USDA published its final rule on US hemp production. The rule, which becomes effective on March 22, 2021, expands and formalizes previous guidance related to waste disposal of noncompliant or “hot” crops (crops with a THC concentration above .3 percent). Importantly for the industry, the new disposal rules remove unduly burdensome DEA oversight and provides for remediation options.

Producers will not be required to use a DEA reverse distributor or law enforcement to dispose of noncompliant plants. Instead, producers will be able to use common on-farm practices for disposal. Some of these disposal options include, but are not limited to, plowing under non-compliant plants, composting into “green manure” for use on the same land, tilling, disking, burial or burning. By eliminating DEA involvement from this process, the USDA rules serve to streamline disposal options for producers of this agricultural commodity.

Alternatively, the final rule permits “remediation” of noncompliant plants. Allowing producers to remove and destroy noncompliant flower material – while retaining stalk, stems, leaf material and seeds – is an important crop and cost-saving measure for producers, especially smaller producers. Remediation can also occur by shredding the entire plant to create “biomass” and then re-testing the biomass for compliance. Biomass that fails the retesting is noncompliant hemp and must be destroyed. The USDA has issued an additional guidance document on remediation. Importantly, this guidance advises that lots should be kept separate during the biomass creation process, remediated biomass must be stored and labeled apart from each other and from other compliant hemp lots and seeds removed from non-compliant hemp should not be used for propagative purposes.

The final rules have strict record keeping requirements, such rules ultimately protect producers and should be embraced. For example, producers must document the disposal of all noncompliant plants by completing the “USDA Hemp Plan Producer Disposal Form.” Producers must also maintain records on all remediated plants, including an original copy of the resample test results. Records must be kept for a minimum of three years. While USDA has not yet conducted any random audits, the department may conduct random audits of licensees.

Although this federal guidance brings some clarity to hemp producers, there still remains litigation risks associated with waste disposal. There are unknown environmental impacts from the industry and there is potential tort liability or compliance issues with federal and state regulations. For example, as mentioned above, although burning and composting disposal options for noncompliant plants, the final rule does not address the potential risk for nuisance complaints from smoke or odor associated with these methods.

At the federal level, there could be compliance issues with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and ancillary regulations like Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In addition to government enforcement under RCRA and CERCLA, these hazardous waste laws also permit private party suits. Although plant material from cultivation is not considered hazardous, process liquids from extraction or distillation (ethanol, acetone, etc.) are hazardous. Under RCRA, an individual can bring an “imminent and substantial endangerment” citizen suit against anyone generating or storing hazardous waste in a way the presents imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. Under CERCLA, private parties who incur costs for removal or remediation may sue to recover costs from other responsible parties.

At the state level, there could be issues with state agency guidance and state laws. For example, California has multiple state agencies that oversee cannabis and hemp production and disposal. CA Prop 65 mandates warnings for products with certain chemicals, including pesticides, heavy metals and THC. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the evaluation of the environmental impact of runoff or pesticides prior to issuing a cultivation permit. Both environmental impact laws permit a form of private action.

Given the varied and evolving rules and regulation on hemp cultivation, it remains essential for hemp producers to seek guidance and the help of professionals when entering this highly regulated industry.

Canadian Lab Offers Vapor/Smoke Analysis

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

According to a press release sent out last week, Complex Biotech Discovery Ventures (CBDV) has expanded their testing capabilities considerably with the new addition of a vapor/smoke analyzer. CBDV is a licensed cannabis and psilocybin research laboratory embedded in the University of British Columbia, led by CEO Dr. Markus Roggen.

Dr. Markus Roggen, Founder of Complex Biotech Discovery Ventures (CBDV)

The ability to analyze vapor and smoke is a relatively novel concept for the cannabis space, but has been utilized by the tobacco industry for years now. In the early days of adult-use cannabis legalization in the United States, stringent testing regulations for contaminants like pesticides were adopted out of a fear for what would happen when consumers ingest toxic levels of contaminants.

One of the common refrains iterated throughout the industry over the past ten years was that there just wasn’t enough research on how different contaminants affect patients and consumers when burned and inhaled. We still don’t know too much about what happens when someone smokes a dangerous pesticide, such as myclobutanil. Beyond just contaminants, the new technology allows for companies to measure precise levels of cannabinoids in vapor and smoke, getting a more accurate reading on what cannabinoids are actually making it to the end user.

The smoke analyzer at CBDV

This new development coming from our neighbor to the north could lead to a breakthrough in the cannabis lab testing and research space. CBDV claims they can now analyze cannabis material with a much more in-depth analysis than basic compliance testing labs. The new technology for analysis of smoke, vapor, plant material and formulations allows companies to thoroughly understand their materials in each stage of the product formulation process, all the way to product consumption.

Beyond just smoke and vapor analysis CBDV also offers NMR spectroscopy, metabolomics, nanoparticle characterization, computational modeling and other testing services that go far beyond the traditional compliance testing gamut.

“Our new services offer comprehensive insights into plant material, extracts, end-products and even the smoke/vapor by using state-of-the-art analytical instruments,” says Dr. Roggen. “By understanding the chemical fingerprint of the material, cannabis producers can eliminate impurities, adjust potencies, and optimize extraction processes before wasting money and resources on producing inconsistent end products. As a chemist I am really excited about adding NMR and high-res mass spectroscopy to the cannabis testing offerings.”

Facility Considerations for Cultivation & Manufacturing: A Case Study

By David Vaillencourt
1 Comment

The cannabis industry is growing and evolving at an unprecedented pace and regulators, consumers and businesses continually struggle to keep up.

Cannabis businesses: How do you maintain an edge on the market, avoid costly mistakes?

Case Study: Costly Facility Build Out Oversights

David Vaillencourt will be joining a panel discussion, Integrated Lifecycle of Designing a Cultivation Operation, on December 22 during the Cannabis Quality Virtual Conference. Click here to register. A vertically integrated multi-state operator wants to produce edibles. The state requires adherence to food safety practices (side note – even if the state did not, adherence to food safety practices should be considered as a major facility and operational requirement). They are already successfully producing flower, tinctures and other oil derivatives. Their architect and MEP firm works with them to design a commercial kitchen for the production of safe edibles. The layout is confirmed, the equipment is specified – everything from storage racks, an oven and exhaust hoods, to food-grade tables. The concrete is poured and walls are constructed. The local health authority comes in to inspect the construction progress, who happens to have a background in industrial food-grade facilities (think General Mills). They remind the company that they must have three-compartment sinks with hot running water for effective cleaning and sanitation, known as clean-out-of-place (COP). The result? Partial demolition of the floor to run pipeline, and a retrofit to make room for the larger sinks, including redoing electrical work and a contentious team debate about the size of the existing equipment that was designed to fit ‘just right.’

Unfortunately, this is just one more common story our team recently witnessed. In this article, I outline a few recommendations and a process (Quality by Design) that could have reduced this and many other issues. For some, following the process may just be the difference between being profitable or going out of business in 2021.

The benefits of Quality by Design are tangible and measurable:

  1. Reduce mistakes that lead to costly re-work
  2. Mitigate inefficient operational flow
  3. Reduce the risk of cross-contamination and product mix-ups. It happens all the time without carefully laid out processes.
  4. Eliminate bottlenecks in your production process
  5. Mitigate the risk of a major recall.

The solution is in the process

Regardless of whether you fall in the category of a food producer, manufacturer of infused products (MIP), food producers, re-packager or even a cultivator, consider the following and ask these questions as a team.

People

Food processing and sanitation
By standardizing and documenting safety procedures, manufacturers mitigate the risk of cannabis-specific concerns

For every process, who is performing it? This may be a single individual or the role of specific people as defined in a job description.

Does the individual(s) performing the process have sufficient education and training? Do you have a diverse team that can provide different perspectives? World class operations are not developed in a vacuum, but rather with a team. Encourage healthy discourse and dialogue.

Process

Is the process defined? Perhaps in a standard operating procedure (SOP) or work instruction (WI). This is not the general guidance an equipment vendor provided you with, this is your process.

How well do you know your process? Does your SOP or WI specify (with numbers) how long to run the piece of equipment, the specification of the raw materials used (or not used) during the process, and what defines a successful output?

Do you have a system in place for when things deviate from the process? Processes are not foolproof. Do not get hung up on deviations from the process, but don’t turn a blind eye to them. Record and monitor them. In time, they will show you clear opportunities for improvement, preventing major catastrophes.

Materials

What are the raw materials being used? Where are they coming from (who is your supplier and how did you qualify them)?

Start with the raw materials that create your product or touch your product at all stages of the process. We have seen many cases where cannabis oils fail for heavy metals, specifically lead. Extractors are quick to blame the cultivator and their nutrients, as cannabis is a very effective phytoremediator (it uptakes heavy metals and toxins from soil substrate). The more likely culprit – your glassware! Storing cannabis oil, both work in process or final product in glass jars, while preferred over plastic, requires due diligence on the provider of your glassware. If they change the factory in which it is produced, will you be notified? Stipulate this in your contract. Don’t find yourself in the next cannabis lead recall that gets the attention of the FDA.

Savings is gained through simple control of your raw materials. Variability in your raw material going into the extractor is inevitable, but the more you can do to standardize the quality of your inputs, the less work re-formulating needs to be done downstream. Eliminate the constant need to troubleshoot why yields are lower than expected, or worst case, having to rerun or throw an entire batch out because it was “hot” (either too much THC in the hemp/CBD space or pesticides/heavy metals). These all add up to significant downstream bottlenecks – underutilized equipment, inefficient staff (increase in labor cost) all because of a lack of upstream controls. Use your current process as a starting point, but implement a quality system to drive improvement in operational efficiency and watch your top line grow while your bottom-line decreases.

Consistency in quality standards requires meticulous SOPs

Have you tested and confirmed the quality of your raw material? This isn’t just does it have THC and is it cannabis, but is it a certain particle size, moisture level, etc.? Again, define the quality of your raw materials (specifications) and test for it.

Rememberranges are your friend. It is much better to say 9-13% moisture than “about 10%”. For your most diligent extractor, 11% will be unacceptable, but for a guy that just wants to get the job done, 13% just may do!

Test your final product AFTER the process. Again, how does it stack up against your specifications? You may need to have multiple specifications based on different types of raw material. Perhaps one strain with a certain range of cannabinoids and terpenes can be expected for production.

Review the data and trend it. Are you getting lower yields than normal? This may be due to an issue with the equipment, maybe a blockage has formed somewhere, a valve is loose, and simple preventive maintenance will get you back up and running. Or, it could be that the raw biomass quality has changed. Either way, having that data available for review and analysis will allow you to identify the root cause and prevent a surprise failure of your equipment. Murphy’s law applies to the cannabis industry too.

  1. You are able to predict and prevent most failures before they occur
  2. You increase the longevity of your equipment
  3. You are able to predict with a level of confidence – imagine estimating how much product you will product next month and hitting that target – every time!
  4. Business risks are significantly mitigated – a process that spews out metal, concentrates heavy metals or does not kill microbes that were in the raw material is an expensive mistake.
  5. Your employees don’t feel like they are running around with their hair on fire all the time. It’s expensive to train new employees. Reduce your turnover with a less stressed-out team.

Takeaways

Maintaining a competitive edge in the cannabis industry is not easy, but it can be made easier with the right team, tools and data. Our recommendations boil down to a few simple steps:

  1. Make sure you have a chemical or mechanical engineer to understand, optimize and standardize your process (you should have one of these on staff permanently!)
  2. Implement a testing program for all raw materials
    1. Test your raw materials – cannabis flower, solvents, additives, etc. before using. Work with your team to understand what you should and should not test for, and the frequency for doing so. Some materials/vendors are likely more consistent or reliable than others. Test the less reliable ones more frequently (or even every time!)
  3. Test your final product after you extract it – Just because your local regulatory body does not require a certain test, it does not mean you should not look for it. Anything that you specified wanting the product to achieve needs to be tested at an established frequency (and this does not necessarily need to be every batch).
  4. Repeat, and record all of your extraction parameters.
  5. Review, approve and set a system in place for monitoring any changes.

Congratulations, you have just gone through the process of validating your operation. You may now begin to realize the benefits of validating your operation, from your personnel to your equipment and processes.

A Survey of State CBD & Hemp Regulation Since The 2018 Farm Bill

By Brett Schuman, Jennifer Fisher, Brendan Radke, Gina Faldetta
1 Comment

Since the December 20, 2018 enactment of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, better known as the Farm Bill, we have seen a number of new state laws addressing both the legality of hemp and products derived therefrom, most noticeably cannabidiol, better known as CBD. This piece provides a brief overview of some of the more interesting state laws concerning hemp and CBD, as well as recent developments.

Legality of Hemp

Since the passage of the Farm Bill, the vast majority of states have legalized the cultivation and sale of hemp and hemp products. However, certain states maintain laws barring some or even most forms of hemp.

The most stringent of those states is Idaho, where hemp remains illegal. In March 2020, Senate Bill 1345 – legislation that would have allowed for the production and processing of industrial hemp – died in the House State Affairs Committee, due to concerns that legalizing hemp would be the first step toward legalizing “marijuana”; that the bill contained too much regulation and that it was otherwise unworkable. As a result, Idaho is currently the only state without a legal hemp industry. Hemp with any THC, even at or below the 0.3 percent threshold under the Farm Bill, is considered equivalent to “marijuana” in Idaho and is illegal (see below for a discussion of CBD in Idaho).

Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and Texas have enacted bans on smokable hemp. Indiana law prohibits hemp products “in a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.” Iowa has amended its Hemp Act to ban products introduced to the body “by any method of inhalation.” Louisiana prohibits “any part of hemp for inhalation” except hemp rolling papers, and Texas law prohibits “consumable hemp products for smoking.”

Some of these bans have been challenged in court. In Indiana, a group of hemp sellers requested an injunction against the smokable hemp ban in federal court, on the grounds that the federal Farm Bill likely preempted the Indiana law. In September of 2019, the district court issued the requested injunction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned that decision in July 2020, stating that the order “swept too broadly.” The Seventh Circuit noted that the 2018 Farm Bill “expressly provides that the states retain the authority to regulate the production of hemp” and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Similarly, in Texas, hemp producers have sued in state court over the smokable hemp ban, questioning its constitutionality and arguing that it would result in a loss of jobs and tax revenue for the state. According to those producers, smokable hemp comprises up to 50 percent of revenue from hemp products. On September 17, 2020, Travis County Judge Lora Livingston issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law until trial, which currently is set to commence on February 1, 2021. Judge Livingston had previously issued a temporary restraining order to that same effect.

State Laws Regulating CBD

State laws and regulation on hemp-derived CBD are varied, and the legality of a CBD product often comes down to its form and marketing.

FDAlogoAs an initial matter, it must be noted that notwithstanding the Farm Bill the FDA currently prohibits hemp-derived CBD from being be sold as dietary supplements, and food (including animal food or feed) to which CBD has been added cannot be introduced into interstate commerce. As discussed below, a substantial minority of states, including California, follow the FDA’s current position on the permissibility of putting hemp-derived CBD in food or dietary supplements.

Certain states include strict limitations on CBD, none more so than (once again) Idaho. Lacking any legal hemp industry, Idaho restricts CBD products to those having no THC whatsoever, rejecting the generally accepted threshold of not more than 0.3 percent THC. Idaho law also requires that hemp CBD be derived only from “(a) mature stalks of the plant, (b) fiber produced from the stalks, (c) oil or cake made from the seeds or the achene of such plant, (d) any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, or (e) the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”

Kansas similarly prohibits CBD with any amount of THC, though the law is murkier than Idaho’s. While Senate Bill 282 allowed possession and retail sale of CBD effective May 24, 2018 by removing CBD oil from the definition of “marijuana,” this was broadly interpreted to apply to THC-free CBD only. Later legislation, Senate Substitute for HC 2167, effective July 2019, allowed the farming of hemp with THC levels aligned with the Farm Bill definition (i.e., 0.3 percent THC or lower), but expressly prohibited the use of industrial hemp in: cigars, cigarettes, chew, dip, or other smokeless forms of consumption; teas; liquids for use in vaporizing devices; or “[a] ny other hemp product intended for human or animal consumption containing any ingredient derived from industrial hemp that is prohibited pursuant to the Kansas Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or the Kansas Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act,” though this final section provides that “[t] his does not otherwise prohibit the use of any such ingredient, including cannabidiol oil, in hemp products,” the law’s only reference to CBD. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation has reportedly made statements indicating that CBD with any level of THC remains illegal.

Just some of the many hemp-derived CBD products on the market today.

Mississippi only recently legalized the cultivation of hemp via Senate Bill 2725, the Mississippi Help Cultivation Act, which was signed into law on June 29, 2020. House Bill 1547, passed on April 16, 2019, imposed content requirements upon CBD products within Mississippi: to be legal in Mississippi, a CBD product must contain “a minimum ratio of twenty-to-one cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinol (20:1 cannabidiol:tetrahydrocannabinol), and diluted so as to contain at least fifty (50) milligrams of cannabidiol per milliliter, with not more than two and one-half (2.5) milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per milliliter.” Moreover, CBD products produced in Mississippi must be tested at the University of Mississippi’s lab. However, subject to these restrictions, Mississippi allows the sale of CBD products, including edibles, contrary to the restrictions of many of states considered friendlier to hemp.

Perhaps more surprising is Hawaii, which restricts the sale and distribution of CBD, aligning with the FDA’s guidance. In Hawaii it is illegal to add CBD to food, beverages, as well as to sell it as a dietary supplement or market it by asserting health claims. It is also illegal to add CBD to cosmetics, an uncommon restriction across the many states with CBD-specific laws and regulations. Unlike Idaho and Mississippi, which have no medical marijuana programs, Hawaii has long legalized marijuana for medical purposes and in January 2020 decriminalized recreational possession. Hawaii very recently enacted legislation allowing the production and sale of cannabis-infused consumable and topical products by medical cannabis licensees effective January 1, 2021, but this legislation did not address CBD. Given the foregoing, Hawaii’s restrictions on CBD stand out.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

Beyond broad CBD restrictions, many more states prohibit the use of CBD within food, beverages, or as dietary supplements. For instance, twenty states – including California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington – prohibit the sale of CBD in food or beverage. In California, a bill to overhaul California’s hemp laws, Assembly Bill 2028, failed when the legislative session concluded on August 31, 2020 without a vote. AB 2028 would have allowed CBD in food, beverages, and dietary supplements (though, interestingly, it would have banned smokable hemp). As a result, California remains a relatively restrictive state when it comes to hemp-derived CBD, notwithstanding the legality of recreational marijuana.

New York allows the manufacture and sale of CBD, but requires CBD products to be labeled as “dietary supplements.” This mandate conflicts directly with the FDA’s position that CBD products are excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement. Further, despite the state’s categorization of CBD products as dietary supplements, New York prohibits the addition of CBD to food and beverages. These regulations have resulted in a confusing landscape for retailers and manufacturers in the Empire State.

Several states also have labeling requirements specific to CBD products. Batch numbers and ingredients are ubiquitous, but an increasingly common requirement is the inclusion of a scannable code that links to specific information about the product. States imposing this requirement include Florida, Indiana, Texas, and Utah. Indiana is viewed as having one of the more comprehensive labeling requirements for CBD products – or, depending upon your perspective, the most onerous.

WSLCB

Washington Suspends License for Shipping Out of State

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments
WSLCB

On October 7, 2020, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) issued an emergency suspension for El Rey De La Kush, based in Riverside, Washington, for allegedly distributing cannabis products across state lines. This information was found in an email sent out by the WSLCB late Wednesday night on October 7. El Rey De La Kush does not have a website, but it looks like they own this Facebook page.

This picture taken from their Facebook page, appears to show an El Rey De La Kush-branded package of cannabis

Back in September, the Wenatchee Police Department told the WSLCB that they were investigating 4.3 pounds of cannabis they found shipped from a residence in Wenatchee via UPS. When they served a search warrant, they found roughly 620 pounds of cannabis with traceability tags leading them back to El Rey De La Kush.

The suspect in the case is Brandi Clardy, who is affiliated with the company in question and listed on their license. The original licensee, Juan Penaloza, passed away in July this year and Clardy had been the chief operator following Penaloza’s death.

In an interview with the police, the WSLCB says that Clardy admitted to the crime of removing cannabis from the premises with the intent to distribute across state lines.

The WSLCB says cannabis products were actively being diverted to Texas, where adult use cannabis sales is still very illegal.

The license remains suspended for 180 days, after which point the WSLCB will “pursue permanent revocation.” This marks the first and only emergency suspension issued in 2020.

Iridium Consulting & Ionization Labs Launch New Partnership

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
1 Comment

According to a press release published today, Iridium Consulting and Ionization Labs announced the launch of their new partnership for in-house R&D testing. The partnership will launch a new series of in-house potency testing solutions, aimed at increasing accuracy and speed for cannabis companies looking to improve their product quality, while also simplifying the testing process.

Ionization Labs, based in Austin, Texas, has a “Cann-ID Potency Testing Solution” that uses an integrated, proprietary software for cannabinoid analysis. That testing solution allows growers and producers to measure potency in-house. Iridium is providing the service as part of their consulting offering for the cannabis and hemp industry, starting with clients based in California.

“We are delighted to add the Ionization Labs service to our list of offerings for cannabis and hemp clients” says Aaron Green, partner and co-founder at Iridium Consulting. “We have seen a lot of technologies on the market for cannabis R&D potency testing and no other solution provides comparable accuracy, efficiency and ease of use.”

german flag

A Snapshot of The German Cannabis Market: Year 3

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
german flag

Despite the limitations and privations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Germany’s market is “up” in terms of sales and overall insurance approvals. For all the victories however, there are still many kinks along the way. That is of course, not just on the medical front (where flower is yet again in short supply this summer), but also in the CBD space.

There is also clearly a drumbeat for more reform afoot in a country which has bested the COVID-19 pandemic like few others in the world. And like France as well as other countries in Europe, the conversation across the region has turned to including cannabis in recovery efforts, and in multiple ways. That includes not only relying on a new crop and industry for economic revitalization, but also of course, on the topic of further reform.

A Brief Overview Of The “Modern” German Cannabis Market
Germany kicked off the entire cannabis discussion in a big way in Europe in the first quarter of 2017. The government got sued by patients and changed the law mandating that public insurers had to reimburse the drug. They also kicked off a cultivation tender bid which promptly became mired in several rounds of lawsuits and squabbles. The first German grown cannabis will hit pharmacies this fall, but it is not clear when, and the unofficial rumour is that the pandemic will delay distribution. The German distribution tender has been delayed three times so far this year.

In the meantime, the German market has developed into the world’s most lucrative target for global exporters, particularly (but not limited) to GMP and other certifiable high-grade cannabis (and in all its forms).

The German Parliament Building

Other Issues, Problems and Wrinkles

Nothing about cannabis legalization is ever going to be easy, and Germany has been no exception.

The first problem on the ground is that the supply chain here has had several major hits, from the beginning. This is even though the supply has come from ostensibly otherwise reliable sources. Companies in Canada and in Holland have all had different kinds of problems with delivery (for different reasons) throughout this period.

Right now, there is a major reorganization afoot in Holland which may also be affecting the recent decision on the Dutch side to reorganize how the government picks (private) German narcotics distributors. Aurora also had product pulled last fall because of labelling and processing issues. But these, no matter how momentous momentarily, are also just waves in a cannabis ocean that is still choppy. Domestic sales continue to expand and foreign producers can still find a foothold in a still fairly open market.

As a result, even with a new dronabinol competitor, Israel, Australia and South Africa as well as multiple European countries now in advanced export schemes, the supply problem is still a thorny one, but not quite as thorny as it used to be.

However, On The CBD Front…

Things have gotten even more complicated since the repeated decisions on Novel Food at the EU level. Namely, last year’s decision that the only CBD extract that is not “Novel” is extracted from seeds, has thrown the entire industry into a major fluff. Especially when such decisions begin to filter down via a federal and regional approach. This has begun to happen. Indeed, the city of Cologne, in Germany’s most populous state just banned all CBD that is not labelled per an EU (although admittedly) non-binding resolution on the issue.

This in turn is leading to a renewed push for the obvious: recreational cannabis.

Where Is the Recreational Discussion Auf Deutschland?
The recreational movement, generally, has been handed several black eyes for the last three years. Namely, that greater reform was not preserved in the first cannabis legalization that passed, albeit unanimously, in the German Parliament in 2017. However, as many recognized, the first, most important hurdle had just been broached. And indeed, that cautious strategy has created a steadily increasing, high quality (at least for the most part) medical market that is unmatched anywhere in the world except perhaps Israel.

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

Now, however, there are other issues in the room. The CBD discussion is mired in endless hypocrisy and meddling at both the state country level and the EU. There are many Germans who are keen to try cannabis beyond any idea of cannabis as therapy. Remember that Germany has largely managed to contain the outbreak, despite the emergence of several recent but isolated hotspots of late. In Frankfurt, for example, with the exception of more people on kurzarbeit (which is not visible), most street traffic proceeds apace these days with masks on, but with that exception or two, feels pretty much back to “normal.” And of course, economic development in the form of exports is one of Germany’s favorite pastimes.

Beyond that, the needle has absolutely moved across Europe. Several countries, including Greece and Portugal as well as the UK’s Channel Islands, have already jumped on the cannabis economic development bandwagon, and this is only going to encourage the Germans as well as other similar conversations across the region. It has even showed up in France.

And of course, it is not like the implications of Luxembourg and Switzerland as well as recent efforts in Holland to better regulate the recreational industry there, have not been blatantly obvious to those in Europe’s largest medical market.

Look for new shoots and leaves, in other words of the next stage of cannabis reform to take hold auf Deutschland. And soon. It is inevitable.

Will Australia’s Cannabis Program Follow Canada’s Lead?

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The news is intriguing in a world overwhelmed with pandemic news. THC Global, a Canadian-Aussie company now raising money and signing global deals, has just bought a “clinic network” of 30 prescribing physicians that will be able to supply up to 6,000 Australian patients this year.

In doing so, this entity is clearly beginning to establish a pattern of expansion in a new medical market not seen so far outside of Canada. Namely being able to obtain the all-important prescription for one’s brand at the doctor or prescriber’s office which is affiliated with a certain producer. Pharmacies and dispensaries downstream have no discretion for any other product to sell if the brand is written right on the prescription itself.

And this marks a new step in an industry frustrated with the high prices and high levels of red tape in other international environments where more widespread medical cannabis reform has come.

The Situation in Germany
Germany represents, so far at least, the destination market of choice for Canadian cannabis firms (for the last several years at least). This is for several very sound business reasons (at least in theory).

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

The German medical market is the largest in Europe. Health reforms which swept the country at the time of reunification also created a system that is in its own way a hybrid of the more European (and British) NHS and American healthcare. Namely, 90% of the German population is on the system, but it is tied to employment and income. Freelancers, even of the German kind, must use private healthcare as must all non-passport foreigners. If you make over a certain amount of money (about $65,000), you must also pay for private healthcare. As the cannabis revolution rolls forward, many cannabis patients are caught in changing rules and a great reluctance by public health insurers to allow fast entry of any new drug, including this one. This is based on “science” but also cost.

Bottom line? Yes, the market is lucrative and growing, and yes, cannabis is covered under public health insurance, but the ability of any producers to be able to maintain a reliable, steady market of “prescribers” is highly limited. Furthermore, unlike anywhere else in the world, pharmacists play an outsized role in the process – namely because there are no chains (more than four brick and mortar outlets are verboten). Prices and availability vary widely across the country.

There are also no “online” drug stores where patients can send prescriptions in the sense that this vertical has developed in other countries.

Hospital dispensation is, for all the obvious reasons, highly expensive and generally prohibitive for the long term, if not serving much larger numbers of patients.

The Problem in the UK
Like Germany, the UK decided to launch medical “cannabis” – or at least cannabinoid-related drugs under the purview of the NHS, but there are several issues with this.

Epidiolex-GWThe problems start with the fact that the system remains a monopoly for one British company, GW Pharmaceuticals. The medication produced by them, including Sativex and Epidiolex is expensive and does not work for many patients that it is produced “on label” for (such as MS or childhood epilepsy).

And then of course, the largest group of cannabis patients anywhere (chronic pain) have been explicitly excluded from the list of conditions cannabis can be prescribed for under public health guidelines in the UK. This, like Germany, has created a highly expensive system where those patients who obtain the drug on a regular (and legal basis) have to have both private healthcare and obtain help through private clinics. While there are several chain clinics now forming in the UK, this is not the same thing as “buying” patients in the thousands – the model seen in Canada from the beginning of 2014.

The market has a lot of potential, in other words, but like Germany, via very different paths to market than seen in Canada, in particular.

Why Is Canada Different?
The development of the medical market came through federal change in the law around the turn of the century. Namely, after patients won the right to grow for themselves, via Supreme Court legal challenge, patient collectives gradually formed to grow and sell cannabis that was more “professionally” cultivated. This, in turn, became the right of private companies and indeed household names in the Canadian market saw buying patient pools as their path to financing on the equity markets as of 2014.

This is not widely popular within the industry. Indeed, the last legal challenge mounted by the industry to ban non-profit patient collectives fell apart in 2016 – the year that the larger Canadian companies began to look abroad to Europe.

It is also undoubtedly why, beyond the red tape they face in Germany and the UK if not across Europe, Canadian firms are looking to hybridize a model which worked well for them at least in the early days of capitalization of the private industry. And maybe Australia will be “it.” Stay tuned.